What are the considerations used in determining whether misconduct of an individual, established through an earlier disciplinary proceeding against him or her, affords reasonable grounds for belief that the individual will not trade or trade in mortgages with integrity and honesty?

In Henderson v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services)[3], 9 considerations were identified in determining whether the misconduct of an individual, established through an earlier disciplinary proceeding against him or her, affords reasonable grounds for belief that the individual will not deal or trade in mortgages in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. a. the time that has elapsed since the conduct occurred; b. the prolonged or repetitive nature of the conduct; c. the advertent or inadvertent nature of the conduct; d. the extent to which the conduct can be taken to call into question the integrity, honesty or law abiding nature of the individual; e. the closeness of the context of the conduct to the context of activities in which the individual would be engaged as a mortgage agent; f. the fairness of the process followed in the disciplinary proceeding; g. the seriousness with which the disciplinary body treated the conduct as reflected in the severity of the sanction it imposed; h. any unusual and sever pressure the individual was under at the time of the conduct that would explain the conduct but is unlikely to reoccur; i. any consistent and prolonged pattern of reformed or redeeming behaviour on the part of the individual since the conduct occurred.